This invention relates to an apparatus and method for sorting, counting and flattening empty cans.
The invention relates particularly to a method and apparatus for sorting, counting and flattening used beverage cans so that all identifying indicia on the ring or top of the can, as well as the brand name of the can, are easily readable after the can has been completely flattened.
The present invention also relates to a unique method and apparatus for providing an accurate count of the cans processed thereby. The counting function simultaneously counts the total number of cans of any particular brand, the total cans returned to a store owner by any particular customer, and the total number of cans of all brands processed through the machine in a given time period, i.e. a daily or weekly total, etc.
The method and apparatus of the present invention accomplishes all of these functions in a simple one step operation for a single operator.
The recycling of used metal cans is becoming increasingly important with more and more states having mandatory beverage can deposit laws.
The handling of the cans to be recycled is facilitated by flattening the cans because flattening reduces the bulk to at least 20 percent of the original bulk. Flattening of empty cans greatly reduces the space required to store and ship the empty returned cans.
In order to minimize storage problems it is essential that the empty cans be flattened as early as possible in the recycling process. There exists today, in states like Oregon, a critical need for a can flattening machine that is small enough and inexpensive enough to be installed at each individual retail outlet that sells canned beverages. These retail outlets are the first point at which substantial numbers of empty cans are accumulated when returned for the recycling process.
It is also essential that the machine flatten the cans in a manner to allow the brand name and State or Federal deposit information embossed on the ring end of the can to be easily read. The state law of Oregon requires that the deposit information on the ring end of the flattened can be readable.
This problem is further compounded where you have neighboring states, like Oregon, which has beverage can deposit requirements, and California which has no beverage can deposit requirement. The store owner must make the initial deposit on such beverage cans and he only gets a refund from the distributor on cans that he returns with the deposit information thereon clearly and easily readable. Thus it is very important to the store owner that he not pay out money to can returning customers on returned cans which originate in non-deposit states.
A store owner in Oregon, for example, must pay the distributor five cents per can as a deposit when the distributor sells the cans of beverages to the store. The store owner then collects a five cent per can deposit from customers to whom the store owner sells the beverages.
If the customer drinks the beverage right there and turns the can in, the store owner has to immediately return the five cent deposit to the customer. But, the store owner cannot recover his five cent deposit until he returns the cans to the distributor.
Consequently, during the lag period between the time the store owner receives the empty cans from his customers and the time the store owner returns these empty cans to the distributor, the store owner is literally financing the distributor. The money involved is substantial. A large chain retail store might be selling and receiving 10,000 cans per day.
Obtaining an accurate count of recycled cans has presented yet another problem for the store owner. Prior art methods of counting returned cans has proven to be very unsatisfactory for store owners.
In the prior art method of counting, a standard sized plastic bag is supplied the store owner by the beverage distributor. The bags are then filled and tied at the top and it is estimated that there are a given number of cans in the bag.
In a typical prior art estimated count situation it is standard procedure to estimate the bag count at 350 cans per bag. In fact, there may be as many as 400 to 450 cans per bag depending upon how crushed the cans are which determines how much bag space the cans occupy.
There is a slight possibility of an undercount factor of perhaps five percent. However, the likelihood of any significant undercount is very slight because the distributor can visually determine by looking at the height of the bag if the bag is substantially underfilled. Again, it is the store owner who bears the economic brunt due to the high possibility that most bags will have a significant overcount under the prior art counting system of estimated cans per bag. In any event either the store owner or the distributor loses money on such estimated count methods which are not accurate.